What is the preferable way to add new BSP (for stm32 family)

[Peter B]

Do you have any complaints about headers stocked with STM packages?
Are they incomplete?

Best regards.
Peter Borisenko
Awesome Technologies, Ltd.
http://awsmtek.com
+66826684211


On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 9:30 AM Y. HB <sprhawk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the info.  I am working on stm32f302/303 devices.
>
> IMO, it would be better to use a script to generate corresponding BSP by
> converting SVD files (https://github.com/posborne/cmsis-svd)
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 3:00 PM Peter B <peter at awsmtek.com> wrote:
>
>> There some bugs and design flaws in the existing stm32f4 bsp discovered.
>> I have fixed it locally as well as extended it a while (added pwm, uart,
>> spi, can). But have no time to prepare it and make a pull request. I can
>> share it with you if you want.
>>
>> One important thing is to not glue console and UART drivers together. I
>> have separated it as console can work over USB, UART, Telnet and even SWO.
>>
>> I think it would also be great to reuse device support files (e.g.
>> stm32f307x.h, etc.) provided by vendor and make a device selector option in
>> build configuration (even if it will be only a single device). The original
>> stm32f4 bsp was written and tested with stm32f407 but I use stm32f429.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 12:45 PM Y. HB <sprhawk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for your great information !
>>>
>>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 9:57 PM Karel Gardas <karel.gardas at centrum.cz>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not sure about recent progress but IIRC Duc Doan (cced) is also using
>>>> STM provided HAL for his work on GPIO driver for F4 BSP. Please see [1]
>>>> and [2].
>>>>
>>>> If however you consider HAL to be too heavy weight solution, perhaps
>>>> you
>>>> may have a look into STM provided LL (low-layers drivers) API? This
>>>> should be more light weight low level API but with less portability.
>>>> Please see UM1786[3].
>>>>
>>>> Important question here is also a question of licensing. Last few
>>>> releases of at least H7 HAL were done under Apache 2.0 license. F4
>>>> seems
>>>> to be the same case and I would bet F3 would be same too. I mention
>>>> that
>>>> as RTEMS developers still need to kind of discuss Apache 2.0 licensed
>>>> code in the project. Opinion were still not settled before summer
>>>> holidays break but I do not know if there is any movement on this front.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Karel
>>>>
>>>> [1]: https://devel.rtems.org/wiki/GSoC/2022
>>>> [2]: https://medium.com/@dtbpkmte
>>>> [3]:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.st.com/content/ccc/resource/technical/document/user_manual/a6/79/73/ae/6e/1c/44/14/DM00122016.pdf/files/DM00122016.pdf/jcr:content/translations/en.DM00122016.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/10/22 18:20, Y. HB wrote:
>>>> > I have seen in rtems 6.0, there are two stm32 families: stm32f4 and
>>>> stm32h7
>>>> >
>>>> > The former one uses custom code to set up BSP, while the latter one
>>>> uses
>>>> > the ST provided HAL lib to set up BSP.
>>>> >
>>>> > Now I need to add a BSP for stm32f3, which is very different (reg
>>>> > layout) from stm32f4.
>>>> >
>>>> > To add stm32f3 BSP as the stm32f4 approach is tedious and error
>>>> prone,
>>>> > but slim codebase,
>>>> > the stm32h7 way has full capabilities provided via ST HAL, but may be
>>>> > too bloat if many stm32 families being added into source tree.
>>>> >
>>>> > So what is your suggestions? Which is a preferable way ?
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > users mailing list
>>>> > users at rtems.org
>>>> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> users mailing list
>>> users at rtems.org
>>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20220913/45ec15ce/attachment.htm>